4 ms·

It is probably a sloppy mistake, ineptness, and poor process controls by a contributing team, not pure malevolence. In a survey paper some people are sloppy and

It is probably a sloppy mistake, ineptness, and poor process controls by a contributing team, not pure malevolence. In a survey paper some people are sloppy and copy/paste source material directly into their file and edit it, or instruct others to do edits with notes. This creates a large risk that the edit never happens or the wrong version is submitted. Edit: also take into account plenty of these researchers write English as second or third language. Copied text won't necessarily sound as obviously out of place and process becomes even more important.

ninjin 5y ago
To be frank, it does not really matter if it is pure malevolence or not. I am to be honest a bit more stringent than many of my colleagues, but even if I do not hold everyone to my standards I expect my fellow scientists to have high enough standards so that I can read (and most importantly trust) their writing and findings with confidence. Yes, the pressure to publish is insane and even more so in some countries than others (curse those in positions of power that cause this), but as it is impossible to verify every written statement or finding in any science, we must rely highly on honesty and high standards to maintain trust whether we want it or not as there is not (and should not) be a central point of authority to dictate good science. If we fail to do so – regardless whether by malevolence or not – we will be lost as our mode of consensus and communication will sooner or later be in tatters. Thus, screw behaviour like this, it should not happen and the senior academics on that paper should call for its retraction until it is in a state where it can be consumed by the community.
- erosenbe0 5y ago
  I agree retraction or correction is appropriate here. However, I would argue that correcting mistakes is a routine element of science -- whether due to a copy error or a miscalibrated instrument -- whereas malevolence is not. Sure, the end result on the consumer's trust in the science is the same regardless of why the deficiency occurred, but the problem is far more tractable if it results from sloppy QA (or equivalently calibration error and calculation issues) rather than malevolence. In the first case the researchers can eat some crow and do better science next time; in the second you have people who flat out don't belong in science.

ninjin 5y ago

To be frank, it does not really matter if it is pure malevolence or not. I am to be honest a bit more stringent than many of my colleagues, but even if I do not hold everyone to my standards I expect my fellow scientists to have high enough standards so that I can read (and most importantly trust) their writing and findings with confidence. Yes, the pressure to publish is insane and even more so in some countries than others (curse those in positions of power that cause this), but as it is impossible to verify every written statement or finding in any science, we must rely highly on honesty and high standards to maintain trust whether we want it or not as there is not (and should not) be a central point of authority to dictate good science. If we fail to do so – regardless whether by malevolence or not – we will be lost as our mode of consensus and communication will sooner or later be in tatters. Thus, screw behaviour like this, it should not happen and the senior academics on that paper should call for its retraction until it is in a state where it can be consumed by the community.

erosenbe0 5y ago
I agree retraction or correction is appropriate here. However, I would argue that correcting mistakes is a routine element of science -- whether due to a copy error or a miscalibrated instrument -- whereas malevolence is not. Sure, the end result on the consumer's trust in the science is the same regardless of why the deficiency occurred, but the problem is far more tractable if it results from sloppy QA (or equivalently calibration error and calculation issues) rather than malevolence. In the first case the researchers can eat some crow and do better science next time; in the second you have people who flat out don't belong in science.